That’s the question Ines Sainz is raising as she continues to keep her name in the news while confirming my initial suspicions about all of this: that the flames over her appearance in the New York Jets locker room were also fanned by the Association for Women in Sports Media, which she claims never consulted her before advocating on her behalf:
“I wonder why a well respected association such as AWSM, within its right to inform about any violations of work conditions for its members, acted so impulsively.”
It’s hard to argue with anything Shannon Owens writes above. But I think AWSM, a group to which I once belonged, won’t be scrutinized to quite the same degree as Sainz.
After repeatedly trying to contact Sainz without success, AWSM proceeded anyway to press the Jets and the NFL. Since Sainz never filed a complaint, should this have been the normal course of action?
Then again, read AWSM’s “open letter” to its membership about and you’ll understand how stridently hidebound this organization has become.
This whole affair, once on AWSM’s radar, was never about Sainz but rather its own agenda. While the organization was founded to fight some necessary battles for access and fair treatment for women reporters, it has become absolutist, brooking no dissent, never acknowledging the murky nature of what allegedly took place.
Regrettably, Jeff MacGregor references the Stockholm Syndrome to parrot the AWSM party line, more or less.
My question was, and remains, this: Why did AWSM take it upon itself to be offended for Sainz when she wasn’t?
On a related matter, Mattel is introducing a “Sports Reporter Barbie” doll. Want to take a guess as to how she is dressed?